what is boxing's greatest ever era.

7203 Views 84 Replies 13 Participants Last post by bill1234, Apr 12, 2007

TommyGunn

Discussion Starter · Feb 2, 2007

im going with the 70's on this purely because the era was blessed with such talent as ali, frazier, foreman, norton, leonard, hearns, duran, hagler and much much more. :thumbsup:

1 - 20 of 85 Posts

JCC

· #2 · Feb 2, 2007 (Edited)

For reasons of the only options allowed in this poll. I chose to pick the 1950s, however. In my veiw, the 1940s and 1950s produced the most over all talent in the weight divisons. Boxing was also its peak as sport in popularity in those years, the 1940s and 1950s.

JJC

The Auctioneer

· #3 · Feb 2, 2007

I picked the 70's but the 30's through the 70's I think was the real golden age of boxing.No abcs of belts.

bill1234

· #4 · Feb 2, 2007

The Auctioneer said:
I picked the 70's but the 30's through the 70's I think was the real golden age of boxing.No abcs of belts.

I agree, definately the 30's-70's.

Dave Murphy

· #5 · Feb 2, 2007

It seemed that during the Seventies that Boxing was clicking on all cylinders. There wasn't one division that lagged behind the others,like with some of the other Eras where one or two of the glamour divisions was thriving and carrying the rest.

JCC

· #6 · Feb 2, 2007 (Edited)

They say so goes the heavyweight division, so goes the sport of boxing.

If there's no real star the sport suffers.

JJC

bill1234

· #7 · Feb 3, 2007

JCC said:
They say so goes the heavyweight division, so goes the sport of boxing.

If there's no real star the sport suffers.

JJC

Yep, and its true.

TommyGunn

Discussion Starter · #8 · Feb 3, 2007

its good to see vitali comming back just now and guys like sam peter on the up. things just now are starting to look a bit better. still not great but better.

i think we'll all agree that we need a top hw from the u.s. these russian robots just dont add any glitz to the division. and i dont see shannon briggs as the savior.

bill1234

· #9 · Feb 3, 2007

tommygunn said:
its good to see vitali comming back just now and guys like sam peter on the up. things just now are starting to look a bit better. still not great but better.

i think we'll all agree that we need a top hw from the u.s. these russian robots just dont add any glitz to the division. and i dont see shannon briggs as the savior.

What we need is Lennox Lewis to come back and whip all of them, and Vitali. But the sport of boxing truly needs another Muhammad Ali, Larry Holmes, Rocky Marciano, (yes even a Mike Tyson), to get the sport back into it. Someone who will draw crowds, and can back it up with skill, and pure domination.

JCC

· #10 · Feb 3, 2007 (Edited)

tommygunn said:
its good to see vitali comming back just now and guys like sam peter on the up. things just now are starting to look a bit better. still not great but better.

The best of the mediocre, maybe.

tommygunn said:
i think we'll all agree that we need a top hw from the u.s. these russian robots just dont add any glitz to the division.

I don't think you'll likely to see that happen easily, if even at all to happen.

Only for reasons there are easier paths to fame and fortunate these days to attract the most talented of American athletes.

It makes little sense for them to spill their blood, risk their brains and lives in an unforgiving arena of a square ring, when they can make millions in baseball, football, basketball, and as the richest and most famous of the all. Tiger Woods can attest, the non violent sport of golf.

If you want to know why boxing doesn't attract the most talented of Amercian athletes any more?

That's it! That's the reason it doesn't.

If you were to take a fresh and closer look at great's of boxing's past eras, at the legends.

Who were these people?

They were mostly sons of immigrants and racially oppressed blacks in Amercia, and for many of them it was fighting (boxing), or forever laboring in obscurity were the only options.

I love our sport, I boxed too. But reality is reality, and that's just the way it was! That's what over all produced the greats as for many of the American boxer's of past eras who are today legends.

tommygunn said:
... and i dont see shannon briggs as the savior.

Hardly!

JJC

See less See more

Grace

· #11 · Feb 3, 2007

You're saying that what produced a legend in boxing no longer exists. America is too different and these athletes go somewhere else. The Americans love to root for the underdog! We are a nation of immigrants. I voted for the 50's.

RoccoMarciano

· #12 · Feb 3, 2007

I picked the 70's

Grace

· #13 · Feb 3, 2007

Why did you pick the 70's? Because of Ali and Foreman or what other reason did you have?

bill1234

· #14 · Feb 3, 2007

I picked 70's, although the true golden era was from the 30's-mid 80's.

RoccoMarciano

· #15 · Feb 3, 2007

Grace said:
Why did you pick the 70's? Because of Ali and Foreman or what other reason did you have?

Those guys are two of the reasons.. add about half a dozen or so other names to just the HW division and you'll understand why I chose the 70s.

JCC

· #16 · Feb 3, 2007 (Edited)

RoccoMarciano said:
Those guys are two of the reasons.. add about half a dozen or so other names to just the HW division and you'll understand why I chose the 70s.

Because your focus is on the heavyweight division. In the 1940s and 1950s, for example, maybe a 100 fighters in heavyweight division, and 300 in the lightweight divison.

As you study history you'll find in those years the over all weight divisions had by far more over all talent in the weight divisions, and the heavyweight division has always had less over all talent.

JJC

bill1234

· #17 · Feb 3, 2007

JCC said:
Because your focus is on the heavyweight division. In the 1940s and 1950s, for example, maybe a 100 fighters in heavyweight division, and 300 in the lightweight divison.

As you study history you'll find in those years the over all weight divisions had by far more over all talent in the weight divisions, and the heavyweight division has always had less over all talent.

JJC

The 70's had a lot of over all talent. Although in my opinion the 30's-early 80's wasthe true golden age.

RoccoMarciano

· #18 · Feb 3, 2007

bill1234 said:
Although in my opinion the 30's-early 80's wasthe true golden age.

Yes, but having to select one is a little more precise than selecting five and a half.

RoccoMarciano

· #19 · Feb 3, 2007 (Edited)

JCC said:
Because your focus is on the heavyweight division. In the 1940s and 1950s, for example, maybe a 100 fighters in heavyweight division, and 300 in the lightweight divison.

As you study history you'll find in those years the over all weight divisions had by far more over all talent in the weight divisions, and the heavyweight division has always had less over all talent.

JJC

Which explains why the 70s were so great - all that talent in even the HW division.

There is no way Rocky would have went 49-0 in the 70s, the talent level was just too much.

TommyGunn

Discussion Starter · #20 · Feb 3, 2007

i can bet a pound to a penny theres more HOF'ers fought in the 70's than any other era.

1 - 20 of 85 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.